Jürgen Habermas's Theory of Cosmopolitanism

In this paper we explore the sustained and multifaceted attempt of Jürgen Habermas to reconstruct Kant's theory of cosmopolitan right for our own times. In a series of articles written in the post‐1989 period, Habermas has argued that the challenge posed both by the catastrophes of the twentieth century, and by social forces of globalization, has given new impetus to the idea of cosmopolitan justice that Kant first expressed. He recognizes that today we cannot simply repeat Kant's eighteenth‐century vision: that if we are to grapple with the complexities of present‐day problems, it is necessary to iron out certain inconsistencies in Kant's thinking, radicalize it where its break from the old order of nation‐states is incomplete, socialize it so as to draw out the connections between perpetual peace and social justice, and modernize it so as to comprehend the “differences both in global situation and conceptual framework that now separate us from him.” ¹ 1 Karl‐Otto Apel, “Kant's Toward Perpetual Peace as historical prognosis from the point of view of moral duty,” in James Bohman and Matthias Lutz‐Bachmann, eds., Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant's Cosmopolitan Ideal (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1997), 87. Jürgen Habermas, “Kant's Idea of Perpetual Peace, with the Benefit of Two Hundred Years Hindsight,” ibid., 113–53; and in Jürgen Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 165–202. His basic intuition, however, is that Kant's idea of cosmopolitan right is as relevant to our times as it was to Kant's own. If it was Kant's achievement to formulate the idea of cosmopolitanism in a modern philosophical form, Habermas takes up the challenge posed by Karl‐Otto Apel: to “think with Kant against Kant” in reconstructing this idea. What follows is a critical assessment of Habermas's response to this challenge. We focus here on the dilemmas he faces in grounding his normative commitment to cosmopolitan politics and in reconciling his cosmopolitanism with the national framework in which he developed his ideas of constitutional patriotism and deliberative democracy.     

Civil Society and the Legitimation of Global Governance

Abstract

This article assesses in what ways and to what degrees civil society activities have advanced the legitimacy of global governance institutions. It is argued that these citizen initiatives have often enhanced the democratic, legal, moral and technical standing of regulatory agencies with planetary constituencies and jurisdictions. However, these benefits do not flow automatically from civil society mobilizations and on the whole are much less extensive than they could be. With a view to greater realization of the potential contributions to legitimacy, the article elaborates recommendations for more, more inclusive, more competent, more coordinated, and more accountable engagement of global governance by civil society organizations.     

Hegel,Habermas and the Spirit of Critical Theory

Abstract

This paper explores the complex relation between Hegel and Habermas. Centring the discussion around the key themes of philosophy, modernity and political philosophy, it argues for a gradual re-approachment of Habermas towards Hegel. In the final section on critical theory, it takes up the question of the spirit of this theory to offer a more trenchant critique of Habermas' theoretical short coming from this perspective.     

从哈贝马斯理论看国民之争问题

国民之争问题在中国日益突显,这既是一个历史问题,又是一个现代性问题。现代性加剧了个人与国家的疏离,尤其在全球化经济环境下,个体自由与整体和谐的冲突不可避免。哈贝马斯在自由主义与社群主义之外建立新型政治经济哲学,即话语政治,并在国家与市民社会之间开创出公共领域。哈贝马斯将社会结构区分为系统与生活世界两部分,用系统整合与社会整合的方式,并借助公共领域这个中介,协调两者间的矛盾。于是,国家维护系统权力,公民维护社会规范,在权力与规范的对立中,哈贝马斯的商谈理论为国民之争问题的解决提供了协调方法,也为我国经济领域的国民之争问题提供了解决的思路。     

艺术批评的公共性问题与哈贝马斯的公共领域研究

面对中国艺术批评公共性的缺失,建构真正的、文化意义上的艺术批评公共领域,是当今知识分子急需直面的问题。艺术批评以自己的方式介入生活世界,艺术批评的公共性,是当代艺术保持独立与自由发展的重要前提。自主的艺术空间的特点是在合理性的前提下进行平等的沟通、交流和理解。这与哈贝马斯的公共领域概念异质同构。主要侧重于哈贝马斯公共领域概念的发展研究,以期从文化的公共性角度重新审视中国的艺术批评。     

UNAMID and the Legitimation of Global-Regional Peacekeeping Cooperation: Partnership and Friction in UN-AU Relations

ABSTRACT

The ‘hybrid' United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) was initially hailed as a model for peacekeeping cooperation between the UN and African regional organizations. However, UNAMID soon faced contestation from different stakeholders, and the UN and the AU have now essentially abandoned the hybrid approach. The article reconstructs how the mission’s deteriorating legitimacy relates to changing self-legitimation strategies by the two organizations. The UN and the AU pursued mutual legitimation when establishing UNAMID, but later mobilized historical narratives and diverging normative standards to promote competing authority claims. The article thus advances an understanding of inter-organizational relations as inherently political.     

马克思交往理论与哈贝马斯交往理论比较分析

马克思的交往理论基于物质生产实践,注重的是人与自然的物质变换过程中的所形成的人与人之间的生产关系、经济关系、阶级关系、社会关系等,物质交换往往在全部交往行为中具有中心和基础地位。而哈贝马斯的交往理论以理解为目的,注重人与人在话语交流过程中所形成的主体间性,强调在思想上、精神上达成共识。处理好马克思主义交往理论与哈贝马斯交往理论的辩证关系,可以丰富我们对交往理论的认识,更好的指导实践,改善现实生活。